Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Why Call Names? An Answer to Olavo de
Carvalho

By Julio
Severo

Public comment by Brazilian
philosopher Olavo de Carvalho in his Facebook profile (posted on November 25, 2015):

“Pope Francis may really be collaborating
with globalist ambitions, but the World Council of Churches (which is
Protestant) was already collaborating forty years ago. This the scoundrel Julio
Severo does not tell.”

In
this article, no profanity was used against the pope or the Catholic Church.

I do
not like and I do not use profanity. But even though I liked it, Barbwire,
where I am a columnist, has an inflexible posting policy, which says: “We have
no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity,
all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to
maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in
reasonable discourse.”

Therefore,
if I called the pope, the Catholic Church or Olavo a “scoundrel,” I would
rightly be rebuked or expelled from Barbwire.

My
Barbwire article was based on exposés by Cliff Kincaid, a Catholic American who
has already interviewed Olavo. So my main source was Kincaid. How could not
Olavo perceive it if I made it clear, giving full credit to the source? If he
had not perceived it, what is he going to do now? To call Kincaid a “scoundrel”?

Both
Tooley reports show that the World Council of Churches (WCC) is involved with
Liberation Theology, by mentioning especially Rev. Walter Altmann, who was then
the WCC Moderator.

Immediately
after I published a Tooley report in Brazil (July 2007), an assistant of the
WCC Moderator got in touch with me asking for “dialogue” between Altmann and me.

My
answer: “What is there to dialogue? Walter Altmann needs urgently to dialogue
with the Holy Spirit, repent from his many sins and change his course while
there is time. God is love and mercy, but also justice. Sooner or later,
Altmann is going to reap everything that he has planted, because God delays,
but he does not fail.”

There
are many other articles in my blog against WCC. No one of them reviles WCC or
Altmann.

In
America, Olavo’s name appears as president of the Inter-American Institute, a
conservative institution with prominent evangelical and catholic conservative figures.
Its mission is to attack the Left. But currently, its president is busy
attacking, with many dirty words for weeks, a man who fights the Left and
supports Ronald Reagan since the 1980s, when Olavo was still a left-winger in Brazil.

I
know personally some members of the Inter-American Institute. No one of them is
foul-mouthed. I have never heard, for example, evangelical John Haskins, who
had a vital role in the establishment of the institute, using dirty words.

But
when the president of this institute says publicly “This the scoundrel Julio
Severo does not tell,” he commits two sins: 1. He reviled a conservative
Christian. 2. He lied, because this same conservative has already told
everything that he needed to tell on WCC.

Yet,
different from the Catholic Church, where the pope rules, WCC does not rule all
churches in the Protestant and Pentecostal movement. It has influence only on affiliated
churches.

In my
case, I have never attended a WCC-affiliated evangelical church. Even so, I
have told everything about WCC that Brazil needed to know.

I
only did not use to tell in the U.S. that in Brazil Olavo is publicly a
foul-mouthed man who attacks conservatives.

Vulgarity
and profanity are behaviors improper for conservatives, in Brazil or the U.S.
Olavo, who has been reviling me since 2013 when I rejected the Catholic
Inquisition, needs to understand this fact.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

Catholic Church Paid Millions in Dollars to
Facilitate Immigrant Invasion in U.S.

By Julio
Severo

The
biggest beneficiaries of the immigrant invasion in the U.S. have been Islam —
and the Catholic Church, according to a Catholic writer. If he is right about
the major involvement of the Catholic Church in the immigrant invasion in the
U.S., his report could be an important clue for his fellow Catholics to
understand the Islamic invasion in Europe.

Though
the Islamic gain is obvious, especially in demographic and religious expansion
in Europe and America, the Catholic gain, which has been not so evident, has
been mainly financial.

The source
of this information is Cliff Kincaid, an American Catholic who usually sees
Russian conspiracy and culpability in every problem in the universe, but who has
been incredibly able to spot this massive problem in his own church.

Kincaid
said, “According to their financial statement for
2014, the latest year for which figures are available, the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops received over $79 million in government grants
to provide benefits to refugees.”

He
adds that the U.S. government gave more than $1.5 billion to Catholic
organizations over the past two years. These figures include an increase from
just over $440 million (2008) to more than $554 million (2010) just to one
Catholic organization: Catholic Charities USA.

According
to Kincaid, only the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops receives over $70
million a year of taxpayer dollars to resettle thousands of immigrants,
including a large number of Muslims, in unsuspecting U.S. towns and cities.
Catholic Charities throughout the U.S. get many millions more to do this same
kind of work as well.

Has
the Catholic Church in the U.S. become a mere arm of the U.S. Welfare State?

During
his visit to the U.S., Pope Francis praised the Obama administration’s
pro-immigration policies. And in response to the recent wave of Muslims fleeing
the Middle East, Francis has appealed to Europe’s Catholics,
calling on every parish, religious community, monastery and sanctuary to take
in one refugee family. Certainly, this appeal will benefit Islamic invaders.
But how much money, in partnerships with European governments, will the Catholic
Church receive it in all of this?

About
America, Kincaid said, “The Catholic Church in America would clearly prefer to
bring immigrants into the U.S. from Latin America, where Catholicism is still
strong, and have them join Catholic churches in the U.S. The Catholic Center
for Applied Research in the Apostolate reports that 40 percent
of all growth in registered parishioners in Catholic parishes between 2005 and
2010 was from Hispanic or Latino Catholics. But even with the massive
immigration from Latin America, Catholic churches around the U.S. are still
being closed down. A group called Future Church reports that hundreds of
parishes have been merged or closed in New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland
and many other urban and rural places. ‘Recently,’ the group reported, ‘the
Archdiocese of New York merged or closed more than 70 parishes.’”

Ann
Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement Watch website notes that Holy Trinity
Roman Catholic Church in Syracuse, New York, was closed down by the Catholic
Church and has been leased to an Islamic society which renamed it Mosque Of
Jesus The Son Of Mary.

It’s
the Catholic Church’s role, in collaboration with the federal government, in
bringing thousands of “refugees” to the U.S. that caused Corcoran to leave the
Catholic Church. She said, “In 2002, having been raised in a protestant faith,
I became a Catholic. For a few years I loved being a Catholic.” All of that
changed beginning in 2007 when she learned that the Catholic Church, largely
being funded and directed by the U.S. State Department, was resettling mostly
Muslim “refugees” in the U.S.

How
could I have difficulty to believe the Kincaid report on the Catholic Church
facilitating Islamic immigration? In 2002, I attended a hearing on abortion in
the Brazilian Congress, where a prominent pro-abortion House member of the
Workers’ Party said that his political career had begun in the ecclesial
communities of the Catholic Church. These communities, which were obsessed
about Liberation Theology, were facilitating and even instigating Marxist
revolutions in Brazil.

In
2008, when I attended a pro-life conference at the headquarters of the National
Conference of Bishops of Brazil, a Catholic pro-life leader said to me:“Workers’ Party was born here.” Workers’
Party is the ruling socialist party in Brazil. So the Catholic Church in Brazil
greatly facilitated the Marxist disaster in Brazil. My only doubt is if the
Catholic Church in Brazil received government money for this facilitation.

Kincaid
misunderstood the Brazilian scenario, but he apparently is right about the
Catholic situation in America.

After
I read the Kincaid report, I concluded that the Catholic Church does not seem
to care about the fact that the thousands of mostly Muslim “refugees” from
Syria, the Middle East and North Africa who have been invading Europe and U.S.
are going to change the religious and cultural landscape of the U.S. and
Europe. But she seems to care much about the millions of taxpayer dollars being
funneled through her “charities” to “help” Muslim immigrants.

The
situation is even worse in Europe, where more Christian churches are being
closed down and becoming mosques. Islam is replacing Christianity as the
dominant religion in Europe.

According
to Kincaid, reporters have been reluctant to investigate the millions of
federal dollars going to the Catholic Church in America. What is the source of
this reluctance or fear?

Charity
is a beautiful Christian virtue. But to receive millions from the government to
bring thousands of Muslim immigrants is not charity. It is suicide.

Miraculously,
Kincaid did not say that the Kremlin or Putin induced the Catholic Church to
receive money from the U.S. government.

While
all of us thought the Catholic Church did charity with money from her own
pockets, it is indeed millions, millions and millions of government money.

But
real Christian charity has nothing to do with government dependency or
partnership.

Besides,
the supreme mission of Christians is not to receive government money or bring thousands
of Muslim immigrants to Christian nations. Their mission is to take Christ to
Muslims and other people. It is to send Christian missionaries to Muslim
nations.

But
where government money is involved, Christian purpose and mission are corrupted
and debased.

I
wonder how many Protestant groups are equally receiving tax money to facilitate
Islamic immigration. This perverted charity is normal among liberal
Protestants.

At
least in the Catholic Church in America, it seems that her problems, especially
love of government money, began long before Pope Francis and other popes.

If it
is distressing to see Europe and America being islamized by thousands of Muslim
immigrants, it is more pathetic to see the Catholic Church being paid to
facilitate it.

Gay “Marriage”: Alabama Fights Against
Judicial Activism from the U.S. Supreme Court

And,
as Franklin Graham said about Obama’s reaction to this creation, “Right after
the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, he had the gall to
disgrace the White House by lighting it up with the gay pride rainbow colors to
celebrate. This is arrogantly flaunting sinful behavior in the face of Almighty
God.” Graham is the president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

Mat
Staver, chairman of Liberty
Counsel, said there is
“a growing number of voices calling for resistance to the lawless marriage
opinion.”

“Supreme
Court justices swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, not invent a new one,”
he said. “When they put their personal opinions in writing without one shred of
constitutional support, the people have a right to question their authority.”

When
the Supreme Court decision was announced in June, Alabama did not, like other
states, declare the issue resolved. The Alabama Supreme Court justices are
resisting the judicial activism from the U.S. Supreme Court by upholding a law
restricting marriage to opposite sex partners. For more information, read the WND
report “Alabama
gets serious in fight against ‘gay’ marriage,” by Bob Unruh.

Resistance
has been a hallmark of Alabama justices. Last year, pro-abortion activist Nina
Martin labeled Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker as a man who “has
figured out how to dismantle Roe v. Wade.” According to her criticism, Parker
is the biggest threat to abortion in this generation.

Abortion
was granted federal legal acceptance, through the U.S. Supreme Court, under the
administration of Republican President Richard Nixon in 1973. Since then, abortion
has been allowed in the U.S. in all nine months of pregnancy and it has legally
murdered over 60 million innocent Americans. Nixon did not fight fiercely
against this judicial activism imposing capital punishment on the unborn. But
he was the first U.S. president to resign because of political scandals.

Nixon’s
biggest scandal was that he was not the biggest threat to abortion in his
generation. But now God has raised Justice Parker as a better resistance to abortion
in the U.S. Supreme Court.

And
now God is also raising Parker and his worthy company of Alabama justices as a
better resistance to gay “marriage” in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Roy
Moore, the current Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, is famous for not
following orders from federal judges to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments
from the Alabama Judicial Building in 2003. Both Moore and the monuments were
removed from the building. But today he is again in the resistance.

Moore
passionately embraces conservatism. Last July, he reacted when Facebook launched
an app called “Let’s
Celebrate Pride,”
which allowed users to overlay an image of the homosexual rainbow over their
profile picture. The Facebook celebration was in honor of the U.S. Supreme
Court decision creating gay “marriage.”

“Putin was
named the world’s most powerful last year, and the year before as well. To
compile the list, Forbes considered four areas: whether the person had power
over lots of people; the level of financial resources the person controlled;
whether the person was powerful in more than one area; and whether the person
actively used his or her power. A panel of editors ranked the candidates
separately, and then those with the highest scores were placed on the list.
‘Putin emerged as the world’s most powerful person for the third year running,’
the news outlet wrote.”

Russian
President Vladimir Putin had huge disadvantages to take the top spot on Forbes. He has been vilified in the
Western world because he has gone against the homosexual tsunami promoted by
Obama and his administration. In fact, the Western culture seems obsessed about
promoting homosexual propaganda, especially about how to impose it on children.

Conversely,
Putin has passed a ban against homosexual propaganda on children — a ban praised by Rev. Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham
Evangelistic Association, but condemned by Obama and other Western leaders. So
it is no wonder that Putin was named “Person of the Year” in
2014 by The
Advocate, the
oldest homosexual magazine in the U.S. He was portrayed as the number 1 enemy
of homosexual militants around the world just because he protected Russian
children from homosexualists and their harmful propaganda.

The
Ukrainian crisis, ignited by George Soros and U.S. neocons, has been a
convenient U.S. tool against Putin and his international image.

So
how did Putin manage to reach the top stop on Forbes?

One
reason, I suspect, is his warm relationship with Israel and the Jews. While
Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu’s new media chief has called Obama
anti-Semitic (a
characterization denied by the Netanyahu administration, not because it is
false, but because he does not want problems with the haughty emperor Obama and
his empire), Putin’s attitude toward Israel and the Jews have been far away
from anti-Semitism.

Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu

Writing
in the Israel newspaper Jerusalem Post,
Isi Leibler said about Putin:

There are no
rational explanations for Putin’s extraordinary attitude toward Jews, which
some have gone as far as to describe as being motivated by philo-Semitism. Some
say he was influenced as a youngster by his Jewish German teacher, Mina
Yuditskaya, now living in Israel and whom Putin invited for a social chat to
the King David Hotel during his last visit.

He may also be
highly sophisticated and pragmatic, and having seen the outcome of Soviet
anti-Semitism, may have come to a realization that Jewish support would
represent an asset at many levels.

Putin has
ruthlessly suppressed violent anti-Semitism. He has gone out of his way to
attend Jewish functions, such as the opening of a Jewish Museum and Tolerance
Center in Moscow, to which he contributed $50 million of state funds and even
symbolically personally donated a month’s salary.

He also
attended Hanukka celebrations and conveyed warm messages of praise and goodwill
to Jews on the advent of the Jewish New Year – utterly unprecedented,
especially from a nationalist Russian leader.

It is also
astonishing that, despite his strategic involvement and alliance with the
Syrians and Iranians, Putin has determinedly kept the channels to Israel open,
making a point to personally visit Israel. In fact, in June 2012, Israel was
the first country he visited after his election. He frequently speaks warmly
about the Jewish state, expressing pride that it contains the largest diaspora
of former Russian citizens. At the Western Wall, accompanied by Russian Chief
Rabbi Berel Lazar, he donned a kippa, which undoubtedly made his Bolshevik
predecessors turn in their graves. He also seemed quite indifferent to the rage
this created among his Arab allies.

Immediately
after announcing Russia’s intervention [in Syria], Putin agreed to a three-hour
summit meeting with Netanyahu, who flew to Moscow where parameters were drawn
up in order to minimize any possible military overlap and try to protect some
of Israel’s security concerns.

Coordination
has been maintained at the very highest military levels between both countries,
with Russia operating a direct hotline with Yossi Cohen, Israel’s national
security adviser, informing him in advance of Russia bombing targets in Syria.

Furthermore,
according to Ehud Ya’ari of Channel 2, the Russians have allocated a future
role for Israel in their area of influence by offering to buy a substantial
chunk of Israel’s newly discovered gas fields and provide military guarantees
against Hezbollah attacks on the offshore locations. It is also proposing to
export this gas to Europe.

Isi
Leibler also included negative expectations about Putin. Yet, even Ronald Reagan,
who was considered a friend of Israel, was not spared criticism by Jews regarding
his sincerity on his pro-Israel stances. Israeli journalist Chemi Shale has
written about the Jewish suspicions on Reagan. Some of his negative remarks were well based,
because the U.S., which has considered Israel a strategic military ally in the
Middle East, has never recognized Jerusalem as Jewish. In contrast, the U.S. has
never failed to recognize Riyadh, the Saudi capital, as Saudi. Saudi Arabia is
also a U.S. ally in the Middle East and a major global terror sponsor.

Notwithstanding
Jewish criticism over Reagan’s and Putin’s sincerity on Israel, my view is that
Reagan and Putin are commendable for their pro-Israel stances and conservatism.

Putin’s
positive attitudes toward Israel and the Jews, as described by Leibler, can
explain his international success and top spot on Forbes, in spite of massive opposition and hostility from Obama and
other Western leaders intent on fighting against Putin’s staunch effort to
protect Russian children from the gay agenda.

Other
Putin’s positive attitudes are toward persecuted Christians. Last April, when
Armenia remembered the Armenian genocide that happened 100 years ago,
where over 1.5 million Christian Armenians were slaughtered by Turkish Muslims,
U.S. President Barack Obama, who represents the largest Protestant nation in
the world, did not attend the ceremony. Pope Francis, who represents Catholics,
did not attend it too. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, who represents the
largest Catholic nation in the world, did not attend it too. But Putin,
representing the largest Orthodox Christian nation in the world, attended it.

God
said that he would bless those who bless Abraham’s descendants — Israel and the
Jews.

God
is blessing Putin. If he wants more blessings, he should bless Israel and the
Jews more. He should also bless persecuted Christians and their values more. If
he wants less blessings and more curses, he should imitate Obama.